GOP Rep. Vows to Nix Gay Marriage in D.C.

Bill Allowing Same-sex Marriage Likely to Pass City Council But Faces Congressional Review

(AP)  A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the nation's capital was introduced Tuesday, a measure that even opponents acknowledged seems almost unstoppable.

The bill was nearly certain to pass the D.C. city council, but whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets an opportunity to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect. Still, even challengers in Congress acknowledged the bill was likely to become law.

The city began in July recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress had a chance to act on that legislation but didn't.

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah who said he would work to defeat the new bill, anticipates that will happen again with the proposal. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believed it was a matter for D.C. to decide.

D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the new measure at a standing-room only council meeting. The independent and one of two openly gay council members said he hopes for a vote in December.

"There is no question that we are about to embark on an exciting journey here in the district," he said.

His bill specifically says religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies unless they let the public use or rent them.

If the bill becomes law, the city will follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, which issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will begin issuing them in January.

The legislature in Maine has also passed a same-sex marriage bill, but voters will decide in November whether to reverse it. California briefly issued licenses before voters passed a law stopping the practice.

In the District of Columbia, the bill was co-introduced by 10 of the city council's 13 members and has the support of the mayor.

If Congress blocked the bill, it would be rare. In the past 25 years, Congress has rejected only three pieces of legislation. According to Brian Flowers, the city's general counsel, Congress rejected a law in 1991 that would have permitted taller buildings in the city.

In 1999, Congress amended a bill so that city medical marijuana would not be legalized. Congress also repealed a law that would have required D.C. government employees to be city residents.

Same-sex marriage supporters cheered the bill's introduction. D.C. residents Juan Rondon and Edward Grandis came to the meeting wearing T-shirts that displayed copies of their California marriage license.

"I feel a sensation of relief," Grandis said.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, there were about 3,500 same-sex couples living together in the city in 2008, though the number has a wide margin of error. D.C. has 600,000 residents.

Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said he was proud of the city but acknowledged: "We have a long way to go, of course."

The Catholic Church and Washington's archbishop, Donald Wuerl, have been vocal in opposing the legislation. And a group led by Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church, had previously asked D.C.'s board of elections to authorize a ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The board will consider the request later this month.

"We are prepared to go to court," Jackson said.

[tomanyt]

armyoftwelve ... So then by your logic, someone who has both x and y chromosomes can't get married since they aren't male or female. How does that fit into your one-man one-woman idea?

[Hosheen]

I would like someone, anyone, especially one of those lame-brained christer neo-cons to explain how gays getting married harms anyone else. All they can do is quote the Book of Lies, AKA the bible, and rant about "god's will" and "family values" It seems that gays being married IS a family value. Isn't making a commitment a family value? But then, family values to many of them means not getting caught.

[jab232]

The poor GOP. It is a party with no room for moderates or minorities. It is the party of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

[jankebenzone]

Many can't understand why anyone would object to same sex marriage or qay rights. After all, they say what harm can it do ? The same people also can't comprehend why crime has skyrocketed, inflation is far surpassing income increases,public confidence in the future is at an all time low,and suicide rates are at an all time high. In order for society to function well, there must be a strict, enforced code of conduct,law,order,and morality . History has repeatedly proven that when such boundaries become to loose, civilizations and empires quickly errode and eventually collapse.

[taxchurches]

I have yet to figure out why anyone who is not gay even cares about this issue. The only argument I have heard against it is that it "threatens traditional marriage," and I've yet to hear anybody explain that one in any rational way, either. And, even if it does, who cares? Abolition threatened traditional slavery. The definition of tradition: the way people have always done things for no particularly good reason.

If being gay is legal, and getting married is legal, then this is nothing but pure discrimination. Why does anyone care who or what anyone else is married to, as long as they are all consenting adults?

[joeltheleo]

I'm glad the Washington D.C. city councilman has nothing better to do than mess with the homosexuals. He must be nicely sheltered from the reality of substantive problems facing our civilization.

[DoubleHappiness88]

How arrogant, foolish and mean are those who pretend to know whom others should love?

[armyoftwelve]

This whole thread deals with marriage, not love. You should sign off now and go scream at someone on NickJr.

[cs4466]

What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

Married couples have over 1,400 rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.
What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal?Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

[armyoftwelve]

You still haven't showm a compelling reason to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Making homosexuals feel better about themselves is NOT a compelling reason.

Your definition of marriage leaves out children, or more importantly the possibility of new life. Something you aren't going to find in same-sex relationships no matter what the nature of those relationships is.

The simplest thing to do is stick with tradition, keep the definition of marriage as it is between ONE man and ONE woman. It is simple, cheap, and doesn't waste the public's attention span when there are so many other pressing issues out there.

[slownewsday_5]

"by armyoftwelve
Your definition of marriage leaves out children"

So you are also against the infertile and elderly marrying? Make some sense.

[esq777]

Republicans are a total joke. They claim they want the federal government out of local matters, yet they never miss a chance to jam the federal government down our throats to make the most personal choices for us, like marriage, abortion, right to die (Terri Schiavo) just to name a few. These hypocritical clowns have zero credibility.

[esq777]

Classic Republican hypocrite. They claim they are against federal government intrusion into purely local matters, except of course when the intrusion serves their own cheap political agenda.

[formrusmcsgt]

Repubs shun tolerance like the plague....

[armyoftwelve]

Tolerance is a glittering generality. Lots of people in Saudi Arabia think they're "tolerant," and they are among the most hateful people you'll ever meet. Unitarians think they're tolerant too, but I think they are really just relativistic....

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by armyoftwelve October 6, 2009 11:13 PM EDT
Tolerance is a glittering generality.
==========================================

Ah yes, like carrying conviction without supporting evidence or reason? That kind of glittering generality?

Of course, I think the description of tolerance you were aiming for is arbitrary rather than a generality.

[armyoftwelve]

I never said tolerance had anything to do with carrying convictions.

My point is that people throw the word "tolerance" around like it is some kind of cardinal virtue, and it isn't. I think that most people use the word recklessly and don't really understand what they are saying (look at my last post).

I never use the word tolerance, because it IS a glittering generality.

Based on your posts, I don't think you are the one to accuse anyone else of having groundless convictions. My guess is that your are one of those who like to ramble on and on about tolerance, though.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by armyoftwelve October 6, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
I never said tolerance had anything to do with carrying convictions.
===================================================================

And neither did I. ===============================================================

Based on your posts, I don't think you are the one to accuse anyone else of having groundless convictions. My guess is that your are one of those who like to ramble on and on about tolerance, though.
================================================================

Well, I used the word once...in this whole thread, so yeah, I guess I am rambling.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by armyoftwelve October 6, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
Based on your posts, I don't think you are the one to accuse anyone else of having groundless convictions. My guess is that your are one of those who like to ramble on and on about tolerance, though.
===================================================================

Well, I used the word once...in this whole thread, so yeah, I guess I am rambling.

Nice generalization though.

[pubsrtoast]

GOP Vows to Nix Gay_Marriage in D.C.

-------------------------------------

I say we let the GOP nix gay_marriage in D.C., and we nix the GOP everywhere else.

[armyoftwelve]

Thing is, it's not just folks in the GOP that are against same-sex "marriage." President Obama spoke against it when he ran against McCain.

[hungry1968-16]

by 99ereHsdadhgaB October 6, 2009 9:09 PM EDT
Wrong again slownews,as usual. Gays dont like same sex.They pretend their partner have the opposite gender.






Ummmm - HUH?

[msimamaji]

I agree with Greedy Old Partee.

Check out Center for Responsive Politics, and you will find that all of the Republicans who are on the warpath against Obamacare - to the point of stooping to racial slurs - all receive bribes from insurance companies. They are also robbing Medicare Advantage - a scandal that the Attorney General really needs to investigate.

What do you call someone who sells his derrière for money?

But let's give the play-for-pay and in some cases gay-for-pay guys in the shady alleys off Hollywood some props. They are for sale. And they are honest about it. And most of their clients are closeted straight men on the down low, including a lot of Republicans. Is the GOP as honest as the putos on the street corner?

So gays want to get married. What's so wrong about that. For real gays have been getting married for decades, hoping that the right woman would make them "straight." Has that ever worked? So now gays have decided to marry each other. And everyone acts like its an Abomination which will precipitate that Plagues of Egypt.

In the meantime, Senator John Ensign is carrying on like a male garden tool and under an ethics investigation following the lovely example of such straight and narrow GOP stalwarts like Mark Stanford. Hey, since the GOP is into country music, I'd like to dedicate a song to them, that old country classic "The Harper Valley PTA" because the GOP is a bunch of Harper Valley hypocrites.

[hungry1968-16]

by 99ereHsdadhgaB October 6, 2009 9:04 PM EDT
According to rumors in Brazil President Lula paid $10B to Chicago to get the Olympics. Chicago=corruption=Obama.






If Chicago and Obama were so corrupt, he wouldn't have flown to Copenhagen. He wouldn't have had to.

[hungry1968-16]

by 99ereHsdadhgaB October 6, 2009 8:49 PM EDT
You mean, if the constitution dont say anything about people marrying dogs then its legal?Is that your point?






No dummy.

If it's not prohibited by the constitution, then it falls to the state to pass a "penal law" to outlaw it.

You know -- tenth amendment - "state's rights to self governance"? Ever hear of it?

[armyoftwelve]

There are limits to "states rights," we fought a nice bloody Civil War to decide that. Making non-marriages into "marriages" have already wasted the Federal courts resources with at least one frivolous lawsuit involving Massachusetts. The best thing to do is nip this poop in the butt and deal with it at the Federal level by banning same-sex "marriage."

[hungry1968-16]

by 99ereHsdadhgaB October 6, 2009 8:42 PM EDT
To slownews,hungry and LGM


You guys are welcome in Rio 2016. Theres a rumor in Brazil that President Lula paid Obama $10billion to win the Olympic bid.






Maybe I'll come down.

Can I hang upside down in your tree, next to you?

[hungry1968-16]

by 99ereHsdadhgaB October 6, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
And where in the constitution says a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman?







It isn't prohibited anywhere in the constitution, therefore it MUST be legal.

Good catch Baggie!!

[hungry1968-16]

by slownewsday_5 October 6, 2009 8:12 PM EDT
"denn034
the only thing you've accomplished in the end is to destroy the uniqueness and sacredness of marriage "


If it's so sacred, how come so many divorce?







Good point.

And if marriage is truly a religious ceremony, (even though it requires a government issued license), then shouldn't they also provide over a ceremony for the divorce?

[hungry1968-16]

"preside" over the ceremony, "not provide"!!

[armyoftwelve]

The Catholic Church actually does that. I'm not sure about the Orthdox Churches.

[slownewsday_5]

"The Catholic Church actually does that"


No church provides over a government-issued marriage license, Mary.

[justsane-2009]

uh, the catholic church does not recognise divorce...remember henry the eighth and the break from the rome? if you have a whole lotta money, you can buy yourself a nice anulment though.

[curse914]

"U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah who said he would work to defeat the new bill, anticipates that will happen again with the proposal. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believed it was a matter for D.C. to decide."

It would appear "Republicans" have completely forgotten about states rights. I thought this was a founding principle of their Party.